This piece by Andy Sullivan at Reuters is remarkable for how it highlights the monumental gap between President Obama's promises about how going green will create hundreds of thousands of jobs and begin to transform the economy, and the actual results in the last 3 years.

Three weeks ago, President Barack Obama stood in front of a sea of gleaming solar panels in Boulder City, Nevada, to celebrate his administration's efforts to promote "green energy."

Mitt Romney mentioned that his wife confided in him that on the campaign trail she is hearing that women are concerned about jobs and the economy. "I'd like to talk about the economy", he said.

The media went into alert mode and changed the conversation to Anne Romney being a stay at home mom. It worked to perfection. The discussion of Obama's economic incompetence and political cronyism fell by the wayside.

The other day I was listening to talk radio and I forget who it was that was on. But he read a long, LONG list of Obama's Green Energy failures.

So I went looking for it. Hold on to your socks, here. The billions of Obama stimulous money being wasted is outrageous:

For those who only hear about these failing companies one by one, the following is a list of all the clean energy companies supported by President Obamas stimulus that are now failing or have filed for bankruptcy. The liberal media hopes youve forgotten about all of them except Solyndra, but we havent.

Thats 17 (that we know of so far). We also know that loans went to foreign clean energy companies (Fisker sent money to their overseas plant to develop an electric car), and that 80% of these loans went to President Obamas campaign donors.

I understand the headline and Rick Moran’s concern. My local Obama Outhouse Media, the Albany NY Times Union has at least one Energy Saving article almost every day. The articles often make reference to the money savings the corporation or individual will realize by going Green. NEVER, and I repeat NEVER have they provided or quantified the amount of the Federal, state and local subsidies involved in transactions which provide the participates $$$ saving.
To add insult to injury, most of the articles run in the “Business” section.

Since liberals worship mother earth, they will say that we need more public investment, subsidy, whatever you want to call it. In their minds, the cost and upheavals to our economy and federal budget are not an issue, if the spending and subsidy go to anything that can be labeled green.

It was reported just last week that the US had added 6816 MW of wind power in 2011, up over 2010 when it fell because of the recession. New wind generation is second only to new nat gas generation. Iowa is producing 20% of their electricity from wind. Texas is building the new intrastate wind lines

The articles often make reference to the money savings the corporation or individual will realize by going Green. NEVER, and I repeat NEVER have they provided or quantified the amount of the Federal, state and local subsidies involved in transactions which provide the participates $$$ saving.

The answer to the headline question is in the headline: Because it is “Obama’s” green energy program. It really is tiresome to have to constantly try to point out the double-standard that is always at work in our media; but, this is just another example of how, if the president’s name was Bush, this would be covered non-stop.

"NEVER have they provided or quantified the amount of Federal, state and local subsidies"

This is is a 6 year old report that deals only with Texas and, to name a few, we know that Texas has since added solar subsidies and the feds have added biomass subsidies, but it gives you a baseline. This is just the executive summary and the left hand menu leads to more detailed info.

People complain about wind and solar when they need to be complaining about nukes and ethanol. And speaking of ethanol, look at how Iowa has dialed into the wind and ethanol subsidies.

No rebuttal. They advertise here for free installation on your house and then just pay a monthly bill. No mention of tax subsidy or the fact that costs can't be recovered within the service life of the system. Which is why your kids and neighbors have to pay for for you.

Agree about ethanol. Wind and solar can't stand alone. Here they only exist because of subsidies and because the utilities are required to use some percent of “renewable” sources. My electric bill has increased because of the requirement. That increased cost forced on me is the “consumer” part of the chart you linked.

Even though all those graphs equal 100% of that category, wind and solar are generally about 2% - 3% of total electrical supply.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.